get_license

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The word 'Get' signals a read-only operation, and 'including activation history' gives some insight into the response content. However, it does not address error behavior (e.g., invalid/unknown activation key), authentication requirements, or any other side-effect/limit details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, direct sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no filler, and every clause adds useful information about what the tool returns.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with only one parameter and no output schema, so the description should convey what is returned. It states 'detailed information' and specifically calls out 'activation history,' which gives some expectation, but it remains vague about the full response structure and how errors are signaled. The lack of annotations further increases the burden, making this only partially complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already fully describes activationKey with type and format (XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX), so the parameter is well documented in structured form. The description only restates that the key is used to identify the license, adding no significant semantic value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('detailed information about a specific license'), and the lookup mechanism ('by its activation key'). It also mentions the scope ('including activation history'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_licenses (which presumably lists licenses) and generate_license (which creates them).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies the tool is for retrieving details about a single known license, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over list_licenses or generate_license, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria. The usage context is reasonable but left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.